Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34790889›Full record

ReviewSN applied sciences2021

Roboethics principles and policies in Europe and North America.

Sofya Langman, Nicole Capicotto, Yaser Maddahi, Kourosh Zareinia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in SN applied sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sofya Langman *Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nicole Capicotto *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON Canada.
Yaser MaddahiDepartment of Research and Development, Tactile Robotics, Winnipeg, MB Canada.
Kourosh ZareiniaDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0603-9200

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are revolutionizing all spheres of human life. From industrial processes to graphic design, the implementation of automated intelligent systems is changing how industries work. The spread of robots and AI systems has triggered academic institutions to closely examine how these technologies may affect the humanity-this is how the fields of roboethics and AI ethics have been born. The identification of ethical issues for robotics and AI and creation of ethical frameworks were the first steps to creating a regulatory environment for these technologies. In this paper, we focus on regulatory efforts in Europe and North America to create enforceable regulation for AI and robotics. We describe and compare ethical principles, policies, and regulations that have been proposed by government organizations for the design and use of robots and AI. We also discuss proposed international regulation for robotics and AI. This paper tries to highlight the need for a comprehensive, enforceable, and agile policy to ethically regulate technology today and in the future. Through reviewing existing policies, we conclude that the European Unition currently leads the way in defining roboethics and AI ethical principles and implementing them into policy. Our findings suggest that governments in Europe and North America are aware of the ethical risks that robotics and AI pose, and are engaged in policymaking to create regulatory policies for these new technologies.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceEthicsGovernanceRoboethicsRobotics

Identifiers

PMID34790889
PMCPMC8572833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.